[Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Todd Allen]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>> Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
>> consent.  So surely that isn't the issue.
>
>
>
> Many are transferred to Commons from Flickr without the uploader's consent
> which, in the case of sexually explicit photos taken in a private location,
> should always be sought before doing the transfer.
>
> Unfortunately, that's another rule more honoured in the breach than in the
> observance on Commons. (Note that even if the image doesn't show a face,
> the Commons page always includes a link to the person's Flickr stream, thus
> identifying them.)
>
> Incidentally, a Commons copyright specialist is currently being banned for
> nominating admins' copyright violations for deletion, even though the vast
> majority of his deletions have always turned out to be correct ... the
> administrators are feeling "harassed" by having their copyright violations
> nominated and say he's doing it because he doesn't like them, and that it's
> bad for community relations.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Pieter_Kuiper
>
> You couldn't make this stuff up. Not unless you were William Golding, that
> is.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

This thread isn't about copyvios, and I don't want to get too far
afield, but I think it does kind of show the thought process here
sometimes. From my read of the discussions with that editor, as well
as the incident discussion you linked, he is being blocked not for the
deletion nominations themselves, but for making them disruptively,
both by targeting editors he disagrees with and by being abusive
during the process. As a parallel on Wikipedia, if someone has a
disagreement with another editor, and proceeds to nominate 10 of their
articles for deletion with the deletion rationale "Delete this crap by
that moron", that person could be sanctioned even if all 10 articles
really -do- need to be deleted. I don't know if that's really the
case, nor do I feel like reviewing his contributions in enough detail
to find out, but the block discussion is absolutely -not- talking
about what you said it was.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.